“The greatest pleasure I know is to do a good action by stealth and have it found out by accident.” ― Charles Lamb

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

"How ‘A Day Without a Woman’ Could Backfire"

Via Instapundit: "A Day Without A Women,” planned by the same people who arranged the Women’s March earlier this year, is a one-day strike—a form of protest so unpopular it’s typically only used as a last resort. Adding further insult to the families inconvenienced by the demonstration, the strikers appear unable to answer one simple question: What, or whom, are they striking against?

Theoretically, Wednesday’s event is designed to highlight the economic power of women by showing the world what can happen if they refuse to engage in both paid and unpaid work, as well as any shopping, for a day. Right away, thorny questions pile up. First off, are women really attempting to show their value in the workplace by refusing to work? This seems like a risky strategy. No worker is truly indispensable, and going on strike could invite employers to consider just how replaceable you are. Not to mention that parents thrown into the lurch due to last-minute school cancellations for petty political games will surely be tempted to consider other educational choices, too.

Second, what would happen if all women actually participated? The event’s organizers are suggesting women refrain from paid as well as unpaid work, which means mothers, if they followed through with the guidelines, may leave children unattended. The entire American airlines industry would be grounded without women to help planes get on and off the ground. Female nurses and doctors would not be available to administer chemotherapy, deliver babies or conduct life-saving emergency treatments. Do organizers truly want to encourage a movement that would lead to nothing less than the breakdown of civil society? This isn’t a feminist ploy, it’s one for anarchy.